[Marxism] Not a conspiracy theorist, a marxist!

brad babscritique at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 07:40:51 MDT 2010

Joaquin writes:
< However, his
claim all along has been that BP and Obama secretly decided NOT to stop
the leak by blowing up the well, and have suppressed information that
blowing up the well would work so people don't realize they made that
secret decision.
When did I ever write anything close to that?  Really, if you are
going to assert that I made such ridiculous claims then you need to
back them up.  I'll be waiting...

If you think that capitalists and capitalist states would
automatically do what is in the best interest of the public or even
themselves and the only way that they wouldn't would be through a
conspiracy, then it is YOU who has the conspiracy theory of how
capitalist society works.  See there was this guy who wrote these
books in which he described how capitalist society operates and how
it's not a conspiracy but a specific social structure.  You might want
to read a bit of that.

Joaquin again:
<His first sentence is here is bullshit. His argument rests ENTIRELY on
"technical issues," the idea that blowing up the well is a can't-miss
proposition that BP and Obama have secretly decided not to use.
Once again, where did I ever write anything close to that and how can
you ignore the dozens of times I claimed the exact opposite of that?

<That's Brad's whole theses: that there is a conspiracy so BP can spend
billions instead of millions.

I'm sorry, but nobody is THAT stupid. This guy is just a troll.

No, just that capitalism precludes them from doing what is needed to
get the job done.  That's it! No secret meetings or foolproof plans,
just capitalism and the profit motive.  Why are you so dishonest in
your replies?

A troll, really.  A five plus year troll that a few years ago exposed
your bullshit about peak oil causing the run-up in oil prices (talk
about conspiracy theories).

David Walters, I don't know why you feel the need to pile on late in
the discussion and in a manner that appears to rely completely on the
one sided and distorted view of my posts that JB is projecting.  If
you want you should probably go back and read the entire thread and
the one or two before it and come to your own conclusions about what I
am saying, because Joaquin is on some sort of which hunt for
conspiracy theories and seems to be intent on burning me for things I
never wrote.

Mark writes:
> I've read serious posts to the list by Brad and don't regard him as a
troll.  What I've not read is any straightforward and honest
answers...So they are left
with junior high debater's tricks, personal attacks and projections.
Straightforward and honest answers to what Mark?  If someone wants to
ask me a straightforward and honest answer, rather than distorting
what I write and dismissing it as conspiracy based on that distortion
(junior high debater's tricks, personal attacks (troll!!) and
projections, to use your words), I would be more than willing to
answer it.  The whole point of posting it was to discuss political
tactics for the left coming out of the oil spill.

Maybe I should pose this another way and ask what folks here think a
good tactic for politicizing the oil spill would be?  I don't see the
'they are doing all they can to stop it' argument as offering the left
any traction.  Maybe I am wrong and others have an approach that I am
not privy to.  So enlighten me.

Lajany writes:
>When Brad is asked to explain the science behind his position he says
it doesn't matter one whit. Why? Because, crooked science and cranky
engineering are just fine, so long as they supply the jumping off point for
his political position.

This guy is either a spoof of Lysenko, or a serious and committed crank.

Lajany Otum
Why then, Lajany, do you insist on dismissing what I say and asking me
for the science behind my position if I have from the start said that
it is not important to me and what is important is the politics of it?
 Why not except what I am saying and engaging in that rather than
distortions and attempts to discredit me by discrediting the very
thing I have said I am not saying?  And the personal attacks show you
are just desperate.

Lajany again:
>What a stupid comparison for Brad to bring up in support of his position.
The argument that greenhouse gas emissions need to be lowered is based
on serious scientific studies and the IPCC reports. The brouhaha Brad started
here about bombing the BP leak is based on nothing more than the gassy
emissions of  Bill Clinton, a known political swindler, and this sort of junk
to which posted a link recently:

That's not what I wrote.  What I wrote is that "We also don't know if
climate change can be arrested and reversed by lowering greenhouse gas
emissions.  Should we not get behind that too?  Is it a conspiracy
theory?  Should we debate the science behind it and not push a
political position?".  That is different from what you claimed I was
saying and what you then debated.  Do we know that reducing greenhouse
gases will reverse climate change?  No, does it mean that it is
conspiracy theory to argue that we should reduce greenhouse gases to
reduce climate change? No.  Does it mean that I am really saying that
I am disputing the science behind greenhouse gases and climate change?
No. The details of the argument are actually important, Lajany.


More information about the Marxism mailing list